From: Emlyn (emlyn@one.net.au)
Date: Tue Jan 16 2001 - 04:43:31 MST
Why don't any of these types of criticism talk about sexual recombination?
As far as I am aware, sexual recombination of genes is a far stronger
influence than mutation in natural selection.
Consider how large our genes are, and the variation in them in our
population. There's a huge amount of dormant information ready to be
reawakened, lots of less successful strategies which linger on, waiting for
a change in environment to become competitive again. Sexual recombination
plays the role which the popular image assigns to mutation. Mutation, on the
other hand, plays a very minor part, introducing new basic data to play with
occasionally, but occupying a decidedly secondary role.
For instance, computer techniques which harness natural selection use very
little mutation; often they use none. Where the raw material comes from in
these systems is the randomised genes of the original populations; there's
plenty of redundant and unused data to keep a population going for many,
many iterations.
Emlyn
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Marlow" <johnmarlow@gmx.net>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: That (not so) idiot Darwin
> Interesting link to Darwinism/Natural Selection hole-punching in favor of
> directed evolution:
>
> http://jamesphogan.com/bb/archives/evolution.shtml
>
> john marlow
>
> ---
>
>
>
> Emlyn <emlyn@one.net.au> Wrote:
>
> > Being a creationist is pretty dumb, true.
> > However, "directed evolution" at least sounds plausible, and
> merrits
> >some attention.
>
>
> --
> The strength to change what I can, the inability to accept what I
> can't, and the incapacity the tell the difference. --Calvin
>
> Sent through GMX FreeMail - http://www.gmx.net
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:04:55 MST